My contribution to a board
I could help an industrial board examine the obligations inside an apparently attractive order or investment. A forecast can support a persuasive revenue case while leaving the supplier responsible for idle capacity, maintenance or a tool whose future use is uncertain. My experience connects those commercial terms with the people and equipment needed to fulfil them. I would ask the board to understand which uncertainties it is choosing to carry, rather than expect management to remove every uncertainty before making a recommendation.
The external perspective would differ from my executive role. At Selvarune I can ask a functional head to investigate an assumption and return with a proposed response. On another board I would work through the chair and the agreed reporting process, respecting the authority of management to organise the work. I would not turn a director visit into an informal audit of the factory or give instructions to a setter because I recognise the problem being discussed.
My strongest committee contribution would concern industrial risk, operating capability and succession. I can help distinguish a named successor from demonstrated capability and a nominal capacity figure from a resource the company can actually deploy. I am not offering specialist audit assurance or seeking a committee chair role on the basis of a chief executive title alone. The proposed contribution needs to fit the board’s existing skills and the decisions it expects to face.
Capacity and preferences
- Time available
- 24 days per year
- Current directorships
- 1
- Sectors
- Precision manufacturing · Industrial supply chains · Contract assembly
- Company type
- Private industrial business with a board able to challenge both management and controlling owners
- Company stage
- Ownership succession or a change in its customer and capacity model
The seat I am pursuing
The right board would be willing to examine the less visible commitments behind growth and to hear an operating objection before an agreement becomes difficult to change. I would be interested in a company moving beyond founder dependence or adapting its manufacturing model to a different customer mix. A chair who can distinguish constructive challenge from interference would be essential. I would not accept a seat whose main purpose was to secure access to Selvarune’s engineering or purchasing relationships. My contribution should remain useful even if the two businesses never trade with each other. The appointment process should establish that purpose, the relevant conflicts and the practical time commitment before either side relies on the value of the title.
Judgement in practice
01Keeping five tooling files open, 2021
The tooling review resolved sixteen incomplete files, but five remained disputed or insufficiently documented. A board-paper draft described the register as reconciled because every tool now had an entry. I asked the team to distinguish a recorded open question from an agreed obligation. The commercial director worried that the distinction would suggest the exercise had not justified its cost. I considered the opposite risk more important: directors might approve a customer transition on the assumption that the company could transfer a tool without further work. We showed the five cases separately, with responsibility for the next step and appropriate advice where needed. That experience would inform my external contribution by making me attentive to words such as complete and agreed. I would ask what evidence supports them, while recognising that documenting uncertainty can itself be useful progress.
02A qualification that five people had not yet earned, 2025
At the end of the setter-development programme, thirteen colleagues had demonstrated the defined tasks and five needed further supervised practice. The programme sponsor wanted to present eighteen trained setters to reflect the investment and participation. I supported recognising all eighteen participants, but kept the qualification count at thirteen and specified the remaining supervision. The distinction affected what the plants could safely assume in their schedules. It also protected participants from being assigned work beyond what they had demonstrated. I would apply that judgement to a board discussion about capability: ask what a credential or completion figure actually establishes before using it in a growth plan. I would not second-guess the technical assessor from the boardroom. The governance question is whether the organisation reports the assessment faithfully and provides the resources needed to address the gaps.
My first year on a board
An induction should let me understand how the prospective company earns money, what it promises customers and which resources it cannot replace quickly. I would read examples of significant programme commitments with the appropriate confidentiality arrangements, then discuss the board’s existing view of industrial risk. Visits would be agreed with management and the chair, with a defined purpose and no expectation that employees should solve a director’s curiosity at the expense of their work.
During the first year I would aim to contribute to a decision already important to the board, such as a change in customer concentration, a capacity commitment or an ownership transition. I would ask how the alternatives differ in responsibility as well as return. The board may reasonably accept an uncertainty that I would avoid in my own company; my role would be to make sure the choice is understood. At review, I would seek feedback on whether my questions clarified the decision and whether I had respected the organisation’s own operating knowledge.
Conflicts and their management
Manufacturing relationships can overlap through customers, subcontractors, toolmakers and common investors. A company that appears unrelated at group level may compete for the same programme or depend on a supplier whose terms I know through Selvarune. I would disclose those connections and seek a structured review before accepting an external role. The process would need to continue as relationships changed. Confidential drawings, prices and customer plans would remain with the organisation entitled to them, however useful they might appear in another discussion.
My proposed allowance is twenty-four days a year, subject to employer agreement and a realistic assessment of preparation, travel and unscheduled work. I would discuss how the commitment would be handled during a customer dispute or a major operating interruption. One external appointment is the limit I am considering alongside the executive role. I would rather decline a relevant opportunity than accept it on the assumption that difficult periods at the two companies could never coincide.
My independence statement
My Selvarune appointment is executive. A prospective external board would need to assess relevant commercial relationships and independence against its own circumstances; I make no automatic eligibility claim.
Committee contribution
Chair and member readiness| Capacity | Committees |
|---|
| Ready to join | Industrial risk and operations · People development and succession |
|---|
Board and committee exposure
Served as a director
Selvarune Components
Group board, executive director
January 2020–present
Appointed with the CEO role; participates in group decisions and presents operating proposals, without claiming independent status.
Presented to the Board or a committee
Cadrivane Assemblies
Owners’ board, invited business reviews
2013–2019
Presented the general manager’s business review and capital recommendations; was not appointed a director of that company.
Governance learning and readiness
IICA Independent Directors’ Databank: Not yet registered
My current governance role is in Singapore and my search is regional. No Indian databank registration or exemption is claimed; an appointment in another market would require a separate requirements review.
- Board induction on reserved decisions and executive accountability when joining Selvarune in 2020.
- Chair-led annual reviews of industrial programme scenarios, focusing on the evidence required before committing capacity.